Joint trial permissible for POCSO offences: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that since the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act is silent on the aspect of whether two separate incidents can be clubbed together in one first information report (FIR), provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) would apply which allows joint trial if the offences are committed during the course of same transaction ((Hari Dev Acharya @Pranavanand and Ors v State)..The observation was made by single-judge Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while dismissing the petitions filed by a group of people challenging the summons issued by a special POCSO court and the supplementary chargesheets.The summons and the chargesheets related to an incident in August 2019 when a minor studying at a Gurukul in Delhi was allegedly raped by his senior. The boy told his friend that he was taken by the accused to the teacher's room and sexually assaulted. They then reached the police station and repeated the complaint however as his mother and sister also reached the station a compromise was made under pressure from four people.However, the very the survivor was beaten with kicks, fists and punches in front of the entire class and the survivor's friend was rusticated On September 2, 2019 survivor's was sodomised by the same accused. Later, a swami at the Gurukul levelled allegations that the survivor stole dry fruits following which he was also rusticated from the Gurukul. After reaching home, the boy narrated the ordeal to his parents and an FIR was registered against the accused under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of the POCSO Act.The present petitions were filed by the four people who allegedly pressured the family to enter into a compromise and the Swami who allegedly levelled allegations of theft. Police had charged them with Section 21 of the POCSO Act as they failed to report the fact that a child had been sexually assaulted..The petitioners argued that a joint trial would prejudice their defence and/or delay the trial. The Court however disagreed, noting that the offence under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was committed twice by the same accused within a span of one month.“Insofar as mentioning of two incidents in one FIR is concerned, it suffices to note that on both occasions, it was accused Nikhil Arya who committed the offence against the child victim within a span of one month, which is punishable under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 377 IPC. In other words, the child victim and the accused are common in both the incidents. In fact, both the incidents were committed at the same place i.e., the Gurukul,” the Court said..Justice Ohri added that Section 219 of CrPC provides that a person who has committed three offences of the same kind within the space of twelve months can be tried at the same trial and since both offences are punishable under the same section of IPC and POCSO, they form the same transaction.“The present petitioners are accused of their failure to not inform the Special Police Juvenile Unit or the local police after coming to know of the offence committed by accused Nikhil Arya on the child victim and have been charge-sheeted for committing an offence punishable under Section 21 POCSO Act. Section 223(d) CrPC further provides that the persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction can be charged and tried together. As such, the offence committed by the Petitioners are part of the same transaction. Thus, the contention raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, as outlined above, is meritless and is rejected,” the court said.It, therefore, upheld the summoning orders and dismissed the petitions..[Read Judgment]